- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,759
- Likes
- 37,603
It's certainly goofy, but is it any goofier than stuff like biodynamics?
I've set up and run several hundred double-blind experiments in organoleptic wine evaluation and I confess that meditation was something I did not control for.
Have yet to hear anybody claim that wine-makers who use LSD during the wine-making will end up making better wine...
They do make MQA wine, it gets put in a centrifuged and has its alcohol content reduced to fumes and apparently leaves the wine full flavoured..,
I didn't see it stated that it was double blind. That was my first question.Did they state the tasting sessions were double blind, if they did I missed it.
Not directly related but very interesting...
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/baba-shiv-how-wines-price-tag-affect-its-taste
This actually makes sense. Mindfulness meditation increases our sensitivity to the sensory input, and makes people more aware of what they sense. Entirely reasonable that one can enjoy wine even more when being more attuned to how the sensory organs react.
Btw, similar things have been shown when it comes to auditory stimuli. If subjects hear a clicking sound for 30 minutes or so, the brain will start filtering it out, and won't react to every single click. The exception to this pattern is trained Buddhist monks. Their brains keep on registering every single click, even after prolonged periods of exposure to the clicking. It's because they have trained themselves to be very aware of their sensory input. (read a study on this some time ago, can see if I find it again)
Do you have some study with the click filtering you could point me at? Would like to read up on this
Another question I had on this paper, which I don't have access to the original, was there statistical treatment of the results. It is clear they had people vote on the wine preference. They did this 12 times. A majority which is unspecified vote for the meditated wine 11 of 12 times. Each tasting group had seven people in it. So were those results 4 to 3 eleven times and 3 to 4 the twelfth time? If so were those grouped together it wouldn't meet the threshold of 5%. Were some of those 5 to 2 or better? I don't know without seeing the paper. And we still don't know if it was all double blind to the test tasters.
Further this publication Explorer is full of holistic medicine research, herbal treatment of serious medical conditions and intentional mental effects on physical reality research. Basically quack bs.